Slashdot Mirror


Asimov Estate Authorizes New I, Robot Books

daria42 writes "In a move guaranteed to annoy long-term science fiction fans, the estate of legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who passed away in 1992, has authorized a trilogy of sequels to his beloved I, Robot short story series, to be written by relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert. The move is already garnering opposition online. 'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written. If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here,' writes sci-fi/fantasy book site Keeping the Door."

32 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. How about we pay the author not to write them? by cephalien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably too late for that. Sigh :(

    --
    If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
    1. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If these are the same idiots who "authorized" that god-awful movie

      It's not really their fault. Here's how Hollywood works: when the film rights to a story are bought, the filmmakers almost always have the right to do whatever they want with it. This means they can totally rewrite the story, or even slap the title alone on a different, barely-related story. This is why Graham Greene (IIRC) once said that the best deal authors could get from Hollywood was when the film rights were bought but no movie was ever made. (This frequently happens: the rights to Stranger in a Strange Land, the Foundation Trilogy, and many other works have been bouncing around in Hollywood for many years.)

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    2. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could not buy it. Then they'd spend money producing a book that nobody wants. And then they wouldn't make any more. It's called a "free market," you should look it up.

    3. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FWIW i choose to use my intelligence when considering an adaptive work of any sort, be it a movie based on a book or a book based on a book.

      its like this: if i'm from Brooklyn and go to Pizza Hut i'd be a FOOL for expecting the pizza to taste the way it does at home, if i'm from Texas and go into Taco Bell expecting tex-mex i should be shot for stupidity, so why then would any reasonable person go see a movie adapted from a book and expect it to be faithful to their own imagination or even the original authors storyline? Taco Bell isnt bad food, as long as you take it for what it is neither is Pizza Hut. Personally i enjoyed both the Asimov stories as well as the iRobot movie, but i just know what to expect from each.

      also, i dont see anyone roasting Timothy Zahn for his star wars novels. personally i think many of those are better than Return of the Jedi, and definitly better than Lucases last three 'epics' if thats anything to go on, i'm glad Asimov never wrote another robot book, it could haev been worse than Danielle Steele

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    4. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The sad thing is that when you look on a bookstore's shelf, there's hardly anything left of 'hard' science fiction.

      Apparently, to sell a book in the 'sci fi genre', it needs to have a touch of orc death, or perhaps an alternate universe where there's a some sort of hierarchical plot involving robes, old truths, and perhaps incantations.

      I long for Azimov, Heinlein, Dickson, Ellison, Sheckley, etc. Even Pournelle and Niven have seemingly hung up their stirrups.

      Movies from these guys' works? Unlikely to work. The CGI of the mind is not the CGI of the screen.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by chesapeake · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should read Alistair Reynolds then - it's probably the best (and sadly, probably nearly the only) new hard science fiction there. It's really very good.

      If you're not sure, try reading Galactic North - it's a collection of short stories, most of which are set in the Revelation Space 'universe'. It's interesting in that there is no travel faster than c, and people are the usual - grubby and self-serving - no Captain Picards.

    6. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmm. I know you're right, but they DID manage to capture almost 3% of Starship Troopers. That was an amazingly good job on Hollywood's part, wasn't it? Just imagine - if they use the same directors and screenwriters, they might get as much as 5% of the Robot series. Wow. What an idea.

      Nahhh - sitting through 95 minutes of mindless drivel that is totally unrelated to the story just to see those 5 good minutes is unendurable.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by Truth+is+life · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? From where I'm sitting there's plenty of hard sci-fi coming out. Alastair Reynolds was mentioned earlier, but there's also eg. Charlie Stross; even his 'fantasy' stories tend to have more than a little science kicking around them, and he writes perfectly good diamond-hard. I'm hardly in tune with the community, either, so there are likely a lot more authors than those two if you're willing to do some digging. Now, I understand if near-future and not-space opera-type stuff is not your cup of tea, but the Heinlein-type of future doesn't seem terribly likely nowadays, unfortunately.

    8. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, Foundation didn't even start out as books but was a series of short stories in a science fiction magazine.

      Nevertheless it was a trilogy for a long time. There were thirty years between SF and FE.

    9. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just put down Anathem from Neal Stephenson. I got through 250+ pages of this nearly 1000 page tome, and it's just plainly awful. It's Stephenson boorishly showing off his obvious intelligence in yet another fantasy parallel universe world. His seemingly brilliant descriptions may fit the needs of a very small audience, but for a fan of 'hard' sci fi, it's waterboarding.

      And it's not the first, but perhaps the 100th time this has happened. The D&D world has altered sci fi forever. I wish it would fork..... and solidly. I don't mind the fantasy world for other consumers. But it's not my diet at all.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by Draek · · Score: 3, Informative

      On top of the ones already mentioned by the sibling posts, I'll add my recommendation for Robert Charles Wilson, specifically his novel "Spin" which is one of the finest sci-fi novels I've ever read, and decidedly on the 'hard' side of the genre.

      Perhaps the best thing about it is that it wouldn't be so hard to turn it into a movie, as most of the plot happens on "10 seconds into the future" Earth. Unlike, for instance, Asimov's Foundation series or Larry Niven's Ringworld which have *huge* potential of turning into campy, CGI-ridden monstrocities simply by virtue of their settings.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    11. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by Nitewing98 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you mean "R. Danielle Steele?"

      --

      Nitewing '98

      Everything works...in theory.

    12. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a counterpoint, I submit LOTR.

      There are a couple of scenes that I found absolutely awful; totalling maybe 60 seconds out of the, what, 7 hours of movies?

      As someone who had read the series a dozen times over, well, a few years, I have to say that the movie is a shining example of what can be done in translating from paper to film, but so seldom is.

      /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    13. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because it's about that fine line between copyrights and trademarks. You could easily write a set of stories about robots and even include some aspects like Asimov's three laws without violating copyright. But when you want to claim that they are sequels to Asimov's work, you are getting an endorsement from the Asimov estate, diluting Asimov's brand. Trademarks are perpetual (as long as they don't become generic) and few people have any objection to this. I wouldn't mind my work falling into the public domain after 10-15 years (maybe even less for some of it), but I would strongly object to other people being allowed to create modified versions of it and claim that I wrote them, without any editorial input on my part and I would object to people using my name to sell their own products.

      The Asimov estate has already authorised the New Law Robot series (which were mediocre, and didn't really gain much beyond brand recognition from being in the Asimov universe, but did benefit by having Isaac Asimov in big letters on the cover and the real author's name in small letters) and the Second Foundaton Trilogy. The only one of the Second Foundation Trilogy that felt like it was written by someone who had actually read Asimov's other works and could work on the same level of scale was the one by David Brin.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? I quite enjoyed the first one, although I missed Tom Bombadil, who was my favourite part of the book and found the characterisation of Gollum awful. I actually fell asleep in the middle of the second one in the cinema (something I have never done before, nor since), and woke up just in time to see the appalling changes that they'd made to Farimir's character. I didn't see the third one, so maybe it was less bad.

      When I reread the books, I realised that much of the reason that I couldn't stand the film was that it was, in some aspects, a very close adaptation of the book. Where the book had chapters of descriptions without much plot advancement, the film had ten minute segments of CGI without much plot advancement. I can easily read chapters of Tolkien's descriptive passages, but watching half an hour of 'let's show off the Massive Engine again' is just dull.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:How about we pay the author not to write them? by EEDAm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you missed 3/4's of the book and that'd be the whole bit about the alien entities circling the planet, the weapons deployed by them, the mission against them in orbit which is extremely cool, the relevance of parallel universes and theoretical math and all that then huh? I can see that Stephenson isn't for everyone but *objectively* awful? There's an awful lot of people that don't agree with you. Descriptive writing is 'waterboarding' for fans of "real" sci-fi? Does that go for characterisation too? I'm not trying to flame you at all - your taste is your own - but it does seem like your post says a lot about the reader and little about the author.

  2. 0th law of famous sci fi writers' estates by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

    The 0th law is thou shalt sell out and cash in big.

    It overrides the other 3 laws ;-)

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. Cry, Robot... by kclittle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... this is just _wrong_!

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:Cry, Robot... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why, because someone is making books with the same name? If it offends you, don't read them. If you always wanted more I, Robot then read them.

      Nobody's going to be calling them canon.

    2. Re:Cry, Robot... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Funny

      As far as I'm concerned, DS9 is canon, Voyager should be shot out of a cannon, and Enterprise should be shot WITH a cannon.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. Elitism by Djupblue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What kind of elitist crap is that? I love Asimov's books, I have read most of them and they probably helped shape me in a way. I say that if someone wants to have a go at some sequels the go right a head. I don't think that they will be even comparable but I might enjoy them anyway. The worst thing that can happen is that they are not worth reading.

    1. Re:Elitism by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The delicious irony is the wailing about "author's intent" and bemoaning someone other than the original author covering the same ground coming from a group that would gladly see copyright curtailed so that EVERYONE would be free to butcher an author's vision after a period of time.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Elitism by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The delicious irony is the wailing about "author's intent" and bemoaning someone other than the original author covering the same ground coming from a group that would gladly see copyright curtailed so that EVERYONE would be free to butcher an author's vision after a period of time.

      The thing about not having copyright on the book is that there could be no 'official' sequels. Everything would be, more or less, fan fiction. Sure, some of that fan fiction could be marketed and sold, but it is not 'official' fan fiction.

      --
      SSC
  5. Oh, whatever by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author's intentions need to be respected here.

    The author no longer exists, and therefore cannot possibly have intentions.

    That said, this kind of posthumous sequel is almost always a disaster, but that's only a problem for the people who read them. If the idea bugs you at all, rest assured that you are bothered infinitely more than the original author is.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  6. Re:Heh by PaintyThePirate · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, that would be the same if Asimov rose from the dead and decided to write three more books.

  7. It doesn't matter. Compare Sherlock Holmes. by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At this point, I'll bet that there have been more Sherlock Holmes stories written by "Holmesians" than were ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself. And hardly anyone outside of a tiny circle of fandom knows any of them, and none of them have tarnished the reputation of the originals.

    I suspect there are many people reading this who haven't even heard of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, a 1974 ersatz "Sherlock Holmes" novel. It was a bestseller at the time, was adapted into a movie--and, I'm pretty sure, is well on the way to being forgotten.

  8. Re:Sigh by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No-one knows jack about AI.. most can't even define it.

    And if you thought his books were about AI, you completely missed the point.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. Re:hope for the best by Frans+Faase · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The prequels, sequels, and now also immediate sequels written by Kevin J. Anderson and Brain Herbert are a hunderd time more spotty in quality and the prequels that Frank Herbert wrote. It is sure that Frank Herbert "Dune Messiah" was different than many people who had read "Dune" expected, but there are many who believe that the novels in the series actually got better and better. At least Frank Herbert was not repeating the old trick over and over again, as Kevin and Brain have been doing. I write "Kevin and Brain", because I am getting the impression that Kevin is actually doing most of the creative work.

  10. Bullshit by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The travesty here isn't that someone is writing sequels to the original series. The travesty is that his heirs still have a monopoly on the series, 57 years later.

    People writing sequels to books is the right for society to continue to enrichen our culture. Regardless of the quality of the works that will be produced, society grows by garnering inspiration and aid from past works. I'm sure Shakespeare has inspired and helped many a person in learning the trade of creating stories. The tragedy here is that companies like Disney reap all of the benefits of the public domain, while ensuring very little will ever be added back to it.

    Before I get attacked by those who believe you have a right for all time to your ideas, this is a modern construct. Society managed to survive millenia without the damn thing. And as someone who seeks to earn their living in the software industry, I would quite happily place my work in the public domain voluntarily after a period of 25 years.

  11. It is a little late by rssrss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To complain about this. Asimov himself had begun the work of integrating the Robot stories with his Foundation/Galactic Empire stories. All kinds of prequels and sequels were written by the master himself and by other authors and this is just more of the same. Details here.

    Now, here is my question. In the original I Robot stories, the robot's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge. As this is written, Platinum is $1325/troy oz. and Iridium
    is $425. Aren't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon. Was any adjustment of technology made in the subsequent Robot stories?

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  12. Re:Revisionist Colored Glasses by tcdk · · Score: 3, Informative

    He already authorized the Robot City series while he was alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov's_Robot_City

    (it has been a while, but I think I enjoyed the first couple of them)

    He didn't mind other people writing on his ideas...

    --
    TC - My Photos..
  13. Re:Sigh by Canazza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Asimov did not write hard sci-fi in any definition of the word. It was soft sci-fi, focusing mainly on social sciences, like psychology. Any proper scientific discipline lacks technical detail, infact he *Made Up* the science of robotics, from scratch. That's not what Hard Sci-fi writers (like Clarke) do. The Foundation series is definitly soft-sci fi, and more of a space opera than anything else. (Note the difference between Hard, Soft and Pulp sci-fi. Hard and Soft are equally valid as science fiction, its all a matter of taste. Pulp Sci-fi is the likes of Planet of the Apes, Forbidden Planet, Flash Gordon or hell, even Star Wars, that use Science Fiction as a thin veneer for action orientated stories)

    Asimovs ideas are what drives the story in I, Robot, not the science. His ideas stand the test of time, if not the technology (His earliest stories pre-date the invention of the transistor, so futuristic computers still take up warehouses and use vacuum tubes and punch cards)

    I have almost all of Asmiov's Sci-fi output in my library, I absoloutely adore it for it's unfaltering charm and idealism, as well as it's interesting, twisting plots (Particularly Caves of Steel)
    The only licensed sequel I've enjoyed was Mirage by Mark W Tiedelman, admitedly I've not read many of them but there are quite a few. The second Foundation Trilogy, Caliban and Robot City. From what I've heard, both Caliban and Robot City were decent attempts and stand on their own, but the Second Foundation Trilogy was all but trash.

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.